Coated Stents for the Prevention of Restenosis: Part I
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O ver the past decade, the use of endoluminal metallic stents has become common practice during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), especially after clinical trials showed evidence of decreased restenosis rates when compared with balloon angioplasty alone.[1][2][3] Although stents significantly reduce restenosis when compared with balloon angioplasty, restenosis rates in patients who receive stents are still 20% to 40% at 6 months.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Recently, the concept of using stents coated with agents that could potentially inhibit neointimal hyperplasia has emerged.These agents include biocompatible materials, anticoagulants, corticosteroids, and antimitotic agents.This 2-part article reviews animal studies, human observational studies, and results from randomized clinical trials investigating coated stents.Part I discusses the pathophysiology of in-stent restenosis, as well as animal studies investigating coated stents.Part II discusses human studies investigating coated stents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".